Exponents status

[qingkong]

The exponent status of M132350473 showed in
https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=132350473&exp_hi=&full=1
is strange.

It has the LL results but the status is still assigned and updated.

The same status of M132350909 also in https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...exp_hi=&full=1

In addition, the exponent M76795391 in https://www.mersenne.org/report_expo...exp_hi=&full=1 showed it was verified only 2 days after the first round by one person. Actually it seems like a mistake that it was assigned twice in different CPU.

Please check them.

[kladner]

The first two have only the first LL. User Richard is running P-1 factoring on those. I am not sure why they are labeled "redo", but it may mean that Richard is running with higher bounds, if they were P-1'd before.

The last one is self-verified by Richard. Given his projects, he may have had the option to run the 2 tests on different hardware However, the exponent is still active because the DC has to be by another user to confirm the "not Prime" status. This has been discussed a lot, perhaps in the PrimeNet threads. The aim is to avoid even the possibility of cheating.

Richard is probably perfectly honest. He may have run the second LL to check his hardware, since it would probably be a long time before serious DC work is done in that range. It may also have let him decide not to run P-1 on that one.

[qingkong]

Originally Posted by kladner

The first two have only the first LL. User Richard is running P-1 factoring on those. I am not sure why they are labeled "redo", but it may mean that Richard is running with higher bounds, if they were P-1'd before.

There is no P-1 results in the history of the first two, so they should not been P-1'd before. The work types of those two are "PM1-R" in our team assignment list before server received the results (I tracked our team's assignments). I wonder why there is no P-1 results, but the LL results instead.

Anyway, the assignment of those two are still opened, does it mean Richard could send the LL results again?

For the last one, I agree that Richard did the self-check again, but it is strange to count the GHz-Days again. Since DC should to be done by another user, the GHz-Days shouldn't to be count again for the self-check.